10 15. The Court reiterates to the State that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligation of the State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure the full and free exercise of those rights and freedoms to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, not only in relation to the State but also in relation to third parties. The Court has considered that the State is in a special position as guarantor of the individuals deprived of their liberty, as the penitentiary authorities exercise full control over them.4 16. On the other hand, the State reported, once again in a general manner, that it provided the posting of a security service for Yuverky Almonte Herrera, Joel Almonte, Genaro Rincón and Francisco de León Herrera. However, the State did not mention how this security service works, as requested by the President of the Court in the Order of March 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10, Considering fifteen) or submit any documentation to allow the Court to verify this information. In spite of the request by the President of the Court for the State to submit “concrete and detailed information regarding the provisional measures implemented for each of [the] beneficiaries, so that it c[ould] be assessed by the Court” (supra Having Seen 10, Considering twenty-two), the State’s information does not provide elements to verify the effective implementation of measures for their protection. In addition, as inferred from that Order (supra Having Seen 10, Considering twenty-one), “[t]he provisional measures must be designed and implemented with the full participation of the beneficiaries and their representatives, taking into account their special protection needs in conformity with the specific circumstances of the matter,” and “[t]he State must assess the concrete risks of each of the beneficiaries to determine the specific protection mechanisms.” However, the State did not submit information in this regard. 17. The Court takes cognizance that Ms. Ana Jose Montilla is outside of the State’s territory, and that it expressed that “it is most willing” to provide her with a security service if she decides to return to the country. This agrees with that ordered by the President of the Court in the Order of March 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10, operative paragraph three). 18. The information submitted by the Commission demonstrates, prima facie, that the individuals indicated in the request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 1) and in the Order of the President of March 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10) are in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, given that their lives and humane treatment have been threatened and are at grave risk. Specifically with regards to Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera, his right to personal liberty is threatened and under grave risk. Consequently, the InterAmerican Court deems it necessary for these persons to be protected by means of provisional measures, in light of that established in the American Convention. 19. The State must take the steps necessary for the provisional measures ruled in the instant Order to be planned and applied, with the participation of the beneficiaries of these measures or their representatives, so that these measures are provided promptly and effectively. The Court notes that the State’s positive participation, and particularly that of the representatives, is essential to coordinate the implementation of the provisional measures in the instant matter. 4 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering eleven, and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 1, Considering thirteen.